Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Pondering the single party rule argument…

Shall we?

A bitch has noticed that a certain Senator McCain in making the argument that all hell will break lose if Democrats control Congress and the Executive Branch. He hopes to score votes by whipping up fear of single party rule. Interesting decision…particularly when the most recent example of a majority gone wrong hails from the Republicans.

But we don’t vote for parties.

We vote for candidates.

‘Tis true that we often cast our vote for one candidate because we are against another candidate...but outside of each base people spread their vote around.

In every state of the union people are being overwhelmed with pitches from individuals who sorta agree with the policy positions of one party or another. Here in Missouri we’ve got candidates running statewide who never even mention their party affiliation. A bitch suspects that has something to do with the general state level disgust for all things republican and the fact that we no longer have the option of voting a straight ticket.

Political commercials follow a basic formula – I’m for this, that and the other but I get mavericky over that, this and this other shit so you can trust me even though you don’t trust the political party that shall not be mentioned.

Pause…consider…continue.

It appears to me that McCain’s tactic-esque strategy of getting the fear of handing Dems the keys to the store and the alarm code too vote is headed for a collision with the ballot. His hopes may reside in the fact that 'president' is still the first decision voters make…but he runs the risk of reminding undecided voters that some of their indecision results from the trauma leveled by the last party that held all the keys and raided the fuck out of the pantry.

8 comments:

well, no, i don't vote for the candidate anymore- not since 2000. i vote straight across democrat as, i suppose, votes against the republicans. mccain hasn't gotten that the folks in this country do not want anything republican. and the american people haven't gotten that the dems are just as swayed by corporate monies. should be interesting.

Great post and I completely agree. It is the goal of every political Party to get a filibuster proof majority, it's what the Republicans have tried to do, and nearly succeeded in doing, since the early 90s. And while we should have concern about one Party with so much power, the reality is for the first time bills can get passed and stuff done in Congress, without the treat of a filibuster or likely veto. The Republicans have seemingly given up on the Congress as a talking point for the Presidency. Plus when a person goes in the voting booth they should vote based on who is better for them in the state and on the federal level, rather than voting for someone else on the assumption that too much of the 'good' guys might do bad things. What is even stranger is that the next time Republicans would have a chance to take back the Senate would be in 2010. Even Bush took longer than two years to ruin the country.

As an independent, make-up-my-own-mind-each-time voter, I can appreciate what each side has to offer. But I'm not surprised that the only "solution" being presented is to vote for McCain. What about all the senate and congressional races out there? I mean, I know why McCain is saying "vote for McCain to avoid single-party rule", but these are supposedly non-partisan journalists repeating this proposition as if it's the only "solution".

If that (avoiding single-party rule) was truly the only reason to vote for McCain, why not also mention the fact that voters could vote for Obama for president (to set the country in a different direction than we've been going the past 8 years), since that's apparently what people want, but to vote for conservative (fiscal, social, whatever) to ensure that taxes don't skyrocket and businesses get thrown the occasional bone to keep the economy moving? No one mentions that, though, do they?

No, instead what I heard on the radio was a supposed "journalist, so I remain impartial" saying that "Hey, people said that the two biggest issues they want the government to address is climate change and health care, and Obama and McCain are thisclose to the same on that, so it really doesn't matter which one you vote for, so why not vote for McCain to avoid single party rule?"

We have "one party rule" no matter who wins. We are being tag-teamed every four years (or every eight years) by the two wings of the Republicrat War Party. Electing Obama will not result in a government that respects international law, constitutional law and civil liberties. Of course I will enjoy seeing the racist right-wing McCain-Palin ticket trounced in the election, but I have no delusions about an Obama victory resulting in meaningful change and reforms that will benefit peace and justice.

My vote will go to Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente. I'm voting my conscience and to hell with "lesser evilism".

i agree with most of what you said, but many people vote party. My own family is all voting party - Democratic party - but party. And one party rule is always an issue to consider, especially at risk of losing the midterm elections based on that as an issue.

I vote for party. The big goal is to get a majority of the party that can be influenced by your interest group or demographic. No matter how intelligent, competent, and policy-congruent a Republican could be, that Republican is going to face intense pressure to go along with troglodyte policies. It would be nice if the Rs were more middle of the road, but it ain't gonna happen until the Rs are utterly defeated and recognize that they must take back the party from the religious right and move toward the center.

One just hopes that the Democrat dullard state rep. has other D state reps to keep him more or less on the party line. There are plenty of mediocre politicians who just shouldn't be trying to set policy for their party.